Don't You Make This Difficult For Me, Jon Huntsman

It's early, and my feelings are confused right now, but I think I'm starting to really like Jon Huntsman.  I mean, I liked him a lot when he was governor because we just never had governors like him in Utah.  He supported cap-and-trade legislation, he moved us forward on civil rights by supporting gay rights and civil unions, he supported immigrant rights, he called out those ridiculous congressional Republicans for being useless (his word was "inconsequential"), and he generally talked and acted like a moderate in a state where Republican politicians are almost universally crazies.  I even started to like that weird thing he does with his eyebrows.  He wasn't perfect, but he was pretty good.

Then he praised Obama and Clinton and went to work as the ambassador to China in the Obama administration, even when everyone knew he had national aspirations.

Now it is clear that he's running for president and he continues to talk like a moderate, reasonable conservative and, frankly, it's jarring.  Take a look at this article by the Deseret News and in particular the transcript of the interview he did with CNN's John King.

Global Warming House Cleaning

Two quick global warming related issues:

First, two reports were recently released exonerating the Climategate scientists.  One was released by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency* and another by a special British investigation.  The scientists "didn't skew science to inflate evidence of man-made global warming," but were a little too secretive and acted like doofuses in some cases.  But the science is sound.  Should we expect apologies from all the people (I'm looking your way, Beck, Hannity, DeMint, et al) that smeared them in a political ploy to debunk the idea that humans are causing global warming thereby avoiding regulations on greenhouse gases?  Probably not.

Second, a large chunk of America is now suffering under a massive heat wave.  Can we assume that the skeptics will take this as evidence of global warming just as they take news of cold weather as evidence of its falsehood?  Again, probably not.

*On a side note, as a person of Dutch heritage with the most outrageous Dutch name you will ever encounter, let me just express my extreme pleasure with how the World Cup is unfolding.  Once David Villa gets a mouthful of Van Bommel's elbow and a thighful of his cleats, I expect Spain to fold and become as irrelevant in world soccer as they are in world politics.  Am I taking this too seriously?  Probably.  Hup!

Sadly, Your Personal Observations Alone Are Irrelevant to Global Warming

I make it a general rule to avoid the Drudge Report, but today he is leading with the big, bad headline: Cold, Cold, Colder. It is cold right now, no question, but clearly the idea Drudge is shoveling is that global warming cannot possibly exist when it is so cold outside! He also links to the following stories:

Temps Plunge to Record as Cold Snap Freezes North, East States...
CHILL MAP...
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Power outage halts flights at Washington Reagan National Airport...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
Peru's mountain people 'face extinction because of cold conditions'...
Beijing -- coldest in 40 years...
World copes with Arctic weather...

It's almost like we are trying, at times, to show how little we understand about logic and reasoning and critical thinking. Let me start here: the terms "global warming" and "global climate change" have something in common, can you spot it? Yes, it is the word global. As in, the entire globe throughout the entire year. So a few news stories from a smattering of places that happen to be cold are not persuasive, at all, to refute global warming.

Here are some items that Drudge and others have conveniently omitted from their crack efforts to debunk global warming:

In 2007, the 11 hottest years occurred in the previous 13 years.
2009 was the fifth hottest year on record.
The Aught's was the hottest decade on record.
The polar ice caps are melting faster than expected.
Polar ice is at record lows.
New sea routes are opening because of melting polar ice.

Here we have stories in which scientists that are remembering to take into account the global part of "global warming" find compelling evidence that global warming is occurring, and that man-made actions are a major factor. It is no longer sufficient to walk outside your house to see if it's a cold winter to have an opinion on the global climate. We're a little more sophisticated now.

And I am by no means an alarmist. I tend to think we still have time to take a measured approach to this problem as long as we start now. I think the legislation that is making its way through Congress now, which reduces emissions of greenhouse gases by around 17% by 2020, is a nice sensible step. I think the modest agreement Pres. Obama arranged in the Copenhagen climate change summit can do some real good. By taking moderate steps now we can avoid having to make drastic, economy-altering changes in the future.

In a perfect world we would all voluntarily cut our personal emissions drastically for the good of Earth and ourselves. We would demand more fuel-efficient cars, drive less, use less electricity, buy locally-produced food, recycle everything possible, and demand real investment in alternative and renewable energy sources. We would have a cleaner planet and lead healthier and happier lives.

But in the real world, on a global economic scale, we unfortunately have to take more moderate steps. What doesn't help, though, is people drawing conclusions about global issues based on infinitesimally small data points, like how cold it got last night in their back yard.

Ugly Cap-and-Trade Logic

I think the worst argument against a cap-and-trade system to lower greenhouse gas emissions is the China-India argument. It goes like this: Since China and India are not going to do anything in the near term to reduce their GHG emissions, it would be a waste of time for us to do anything. Unless everyone does, nobody should do it.

Think if we used this (non) logic in other areas of our lives. Unless everyone at my place of employment starts working hard all day long, I'm going to slack because my effort is worthless on its own. Until every other nation on earth ends human rights violations, we are going to keep oppressing our citizens because we are just a drop in the bucket. Unless all the other people around this child at the ballpark stop swearing and cussing, I'm going to keep on doing it because it won't really make a difference if I stop.

I find it absurd. We don't do the right thing only when it is popular or common, we do the right thing because it is intrinsically good. And yet conservatives accuse liberals of moral relativism.

Conservatives want the U.S. to be the shining beacon of democracy and justice and fairness, to lead the way in creating democracies. I and other liberals agree with them. But they don't want to be the leaders global warming reduction and other environmental causes which are just as important, or maybe more important, than democracy building. In that case they want to be the followers, the last person through the door after everyone else ensures it is safe. I say we should lead out on the issue and, if so, China and India will come along too.

And we shouldn't be deluding ourselves that our emissions are just a drop in the bucket, or that our reduction of GHG emissions alone is too small to make a difference. The US emits more GHG by total emissions and per capita than any other nation in the world. We account for almost one-fourth of the total GHG emissions worldwide. We are the big fish.

Lets not wait around for everyone else to do the right thing before we act, lets be the world leaders that we are expected to be.

Utah Escapes Global Climate Change Thanks to New Governor

I remember when Utah used to have a really normal, really smart, really pragmatic man running our state. Now we have Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert. As Gov. Huntsman begins the process of being confirmed by the Senate to take the post of Ambassador to China, he has turned the reigns over to L.G. Herbert.

This is what we call the old bait-and-switch. We are sold on a product that we like a lot and that we want to own, in this case Gov. Huntsman. Then at the last minute we get a somewhat similar product that is different enough to be of much less value, in this case L.G. Herbert. We've been betrayed. I never thought I'd have this deep sense of longing for a Republican.

So right off the bat L.G. Herbert, at the Western Governor's Association meeting, attired in the classic all-black look, professes his serious doubts on climate change and publicly mulls over whether to remove Utah from the Western Climate Initiative. Thanks for everything, Huntsman, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

By the way, can't you just imagine ultra-conservative L.G. Herbert gritting his teeth as the late Gov. Huntsman enrolled Utah in the WCI, supported civil unions and other gay rights, criticized Congressional Republicans as "irrelevant," and generally made of mockery of Utah County-style extreme conservatism? But all those worn down teeth finally paid off, L.G. Herbert, because you're in charge now.

Now, I'm no scientist. Far from it. So lets take a look at the institutions that consider climate change very likely (in scientific parlance "very likely" means 90% to 99% chance it is true) a man-made problem: the U.S. EPA, the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, NASA, the U.S. Geologic Survey, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program which include thirteen federal agencies (for those keeping track, we now have every scientific body of the United States government), the United Nations, Science Magazine, MIT, the National Academies, Britain's Royal Meteorological Society, and on and on and on. If you are able to find a scientific body that disagrees, by all means bring it forward.

But let's listen to what L.G. Herbert has to say:

"I've heard people argue on both sides of the issue, people I have a high regard for. People say man's impact is minimal, if at all, so it appears to me the science is not necessarily conclusive."

Hmmm. Compelling. "People" do say that. My uncle, for instance. Also, a guy in my neighborhood. Keep going, LGH.

"Is there a hidden agenda out there? Help me understand the science."

Yes, every-major-scientific-body-in-the-world-that-has-studied-the-issue, do help us understand.

Herbert told the Deseret News after the discussion he wasn't convinced because all he heard was "the science is conclusive, the science is over. The debate is done. I'm saying, 'Based on what?' "

Seriously, LGH. Somebody show us what the conclusion to this debate is based on. Because if you're just going to point to a bunch of scientific reports, no thanks. Rather . . .

He said polls have shown the public is divided on the issue.

"I think people are confused," he said. "Most people are ignorant of the issue. They all say it sounds good until all of a sudden you've got $4-a-gallon gasoline."

The clincher! I think we can all agree that when it comes to science and major global environmental issues, we should base our reasoning and conclusions on divided public polls and people that are unhappy about high gas prices.

This is going to be our new governor? Ugh. We can debate about just how bad global warming is going to be, and what steps should be taken to best protect us and sustain us, but there simply is no more debate over the fact that human-caused global climate change is real and it is serious. The debate is over based on scientific facts and consensus. It's not haughty to say so, it is haughty to think that you know better.

But my favorite LGH line comes way at the bottom of the story: "regardless of the debate on the science, I'm a capitalist." Thanks for clearing that up, Herbie: Science and capitalism are now mutually exclusive. Science is for commies.

The LDS-Gore Alliance

The Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune are both reporting that Al Gore is meeting with Church leaders today. It appears that Gore requested the meeting, perhaps after witnessing the Church participating in Earth Hour by turning off the lights at the Salt Lake Temple.

As for Earth Hour, where people are asked to turn off their lights for an hour as a show of respect for our environment, a way to act against global warming, and a way to raise awareness, I guess its not too bad an idea. I am all for reducing energy consumption, replacing old lightbulbs with CFLs, driving less, and the like, but I'm not sure sitting around in the dark for an hour is for me. But I was glad to see the Church participate with its most iconic temple as an indication that we are aware of the global warming problem, we think it is real and manmade, and we are willing to make that known publicly.

On top of that the Church is now working on building new LEED certified meetinghouses, which are green buildings that use less energy and are more environmentally friendly.

So now Utah's favorite politician, Al Gore, is requesting meetings with Church leadership. No one knows what they are going to discuss, but I imagine Gore is interested in prodding the Church to stick with this new lurch towards the left, environmentally speaking, and offering any support he can.

I think this is a tremendous step in the right direction, with or without the involvement of Gore (who I think is awesome, by the way, so throw your stones, I don't mind). I'm not saying it is necessarily the Church's responsibility to teach the members a sound environmental ethic as an extension of Church doctrine (though I believe it fits in nicely), but the fact that our spiritual leaders are beginning to lead by example shows that it is an issue that should be treated seriously by members and not just dismissed as left-wingers' attempts to take away our freedoms and comforts for a mere whim.

Now, if we can just stop using rain forest wood for decoration in our temples . . .